Advertisement

A causal proportional hazards estimator under homogeneous or heterogeneous selection in an IV setting

  • Ditte Nørbo Sørensen
  • Torben MartinussenEmail author
  • Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen
Article

Abstract

In this paper we present a framework to do estimation in a structural Cox model when there may be unobserved confounding. The model is phrased in terms of a selection bias function and a baseline model that describes how covariates affect the survival time in a scenario without exposure. In this way model congeniality is ensured. The method uses an instrumental variable. Interestingly, the formulated model turns out to have similarities to the so-called Cox–Aalen survival model for the observed data. We exploit this to enhance estimation of the unknown parameters. This also allows us to derive large sample properties of the proposed estimator.

Keywords

Causal effect Structural Cox model Instrumental variable Treatment effect on the treated Selection bias function 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Shoaib Afzal and Børge Nordestgaard for giving us access to the CGPS-data.

References

  1. Aalen OO (1989) A linear regression model for the analysis of life times. Stat Med 8:907–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen PK, Borgan Ø, Gill RD, Keiding N (1993) Statistical models based on counting processes. Springer, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Angrist JD, Imbens GW (1994) Identification and estimation of local average treatment effects. Econometrica 62:467–475CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen L, Lin DY, Zeng D (2010) Attributable fraction functions for censored event times. Biometrika 97:713–726MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke PS, Windmeijer F (2010) Identification of causal effects on binary outcomes using structural mean models. Biostatistics 11:756–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke PS, Windmeijer F (2012) Instrumental variable estimators for binary outcomes. J Am Stat Assoc 107:1638–1652MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Cuzick J, Sasieni P, Myles J, Tyrer J (2007) Estimating the effect of treatment in a proportional hazards model in the presence of non-compliance and contamination. J R Stat Soc Ser B 69:565–588MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hernan MA, Robins JM (2006) Instruments for causal inference. Epidemiology 17:360–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kosorok MR (2008) Introduction to empirical processes and semiparametric inference. Springer, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Lin DY, Wei LJ, Ying Z (1993) Checking the Cox model with cumulative sums of martingale-based residuals. Biometrika 80:557–572MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Loeys T, Goetghebeur E (2003) A causal proportional hazards estimator for the effect of treatment actually received in a randomized trial with all-or-nothing compliance. Biometrics 59:100–105MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. MacKenzie TA, Tosteson TD, Morden NE, Stukel TA, O’Malley AJ (2014) Using instrumental variables to estimate a Cox’s proportional hazards regression subject to additive confounding. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol 14:54–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. MacKenzie TA, Løberg M, O’Malley AJ (2016) Patient centered hazard ratio estimation using principal stratification weights: application to the NORCCAP randomized trial of colorectal cancer screening. Obs Stud 2:29–50Google Scholar
  14. Martínez-Camblor P, Mackenzie T, Staiger DO, Goodney PP, O’Malley AJ (2017) Adjusting for bias introduced by instrumental variable estimation in the Cox proportional hazards model. Biostatistics 20:80–96MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Martinussen T, Scheike TH (2006) Dynamic regression models for survival data, vol 102. Springer, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Martinussen T, Sørensen D, Vansteelandt S (2017a) Instrumental variables estimation under a structural Cox model. Biostatistics 20:65–79MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Martinussen T, Vansteelandt S, Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Zucker DM (2017b) Instrumental variables estimation of exposure effects on a time-to-event endpoint using structural cumulative survival models. Biometrics 73(4):1140–1149MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Nordestgaard BG, Palmer TM, Benn M, Zacho J, Tybjaerg-Hansen A, Davey Smith G, Timpson NJ (2012) The effect of elevated body mass index on ischemic heart disease risk: causal estimates from a mendelian randomisation approach. PLoS Med 9(5):e1001212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Richardson TS, Robins, JM (2013) Single World Intervention Graphs (SWIGs): a unification of the counterfactual and graphical approaches to causality. Technical Report 128, Center for Statistics and the Social Sciences, University of WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  20. Robins J, Rotnitzky A (2004) Estimation of treatment effects in randomised trials with non-compliance and a dichotomous outcome using structural mean models. Biometrika 91:763–783MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Vansteelandt S (2013) Alternative identification and inference for the effect of treatment on the treated with an instrumental variable. Harvard University Biostatistics Working Paper SeriesGoogle Scholar
  22. Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Walter S, Vansteelandt S, Martinussen T, Glymour M (2015) Instrumental variable estimation in a survival context. Epidemiology 26:402–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tsiatis A (2006) Semiparametric theory and missing data. Springer, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Vansteelandt S, Goetghebeur E (2003) Causal inference with generalized structural mean models. J R Stat Soc Ser B 65:817–835MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Vansteelandt S, Bowden J, Babanezhad M, Goetghebeur E (2011) On instrumental variables estimation of causal odds ratios. Stat Sci 26:403–422MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Section of BiostatisticsUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagen KDenmark
  2. 2.Statistics DepartmentWharton, University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations